Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Pete Roseby
Sean Lahman

Revision History:
December 16, 2002 - Added info on Rose's negotiations with Commissioner Selig
August 24, 2002 - Added comments from Fay Vincent's new book
April 10, 2002 - Comments on Bill James' references to this FAQ in his new book.
July 1, 2001 - Clarified comments about Bill James's misinterpretation of betting slips
October 26, 1999 - Updated with information on the All Century Team event and
corrected some minor errors.
September 7, 1999 - Updated following tenth anniversary and made some spelling
and grammatical corrections.
August 23, 1998 - Converted to HTML & corrected some spelling errors.
April 28, 1998 - Added Posner quote to section 5. Added some text to
Sections 14 and 18
March 20, 1998 - First version posted

This is an attempt to get quick answers to some common questions, to reduce
repetitive discussion from newcomers who often don't understand the issues, and
to provide single, authoritative answers so that rec.sport.baseball doesn't get
overwhelmed with several people making the same point, whether correct or
incorrect.

Constructive comments, corrections, and suggested additions are welcome;
please send them to me at sean@baseball1.com

Baseball started an investigation in February 1989 into allegations that Rose
had been betting on sports, including baseball. These allegations came from one
of Rose's friends, Paul Janszen, and bookie Ron Peters. (Both had been convicted
of felony drug charges.) Both offered documentary evidence of Rose's betting to
support their claims. Former federal prosecutor John Dowd was hired to conduct
an investigation. The testimony of Janszen and Peters was corroborated by Rose's
phone records and bank records, which mirror the activity they described.

Dowd uncovered other evidence which indicated Rose had used other "runners"
besides Janszen to place his bets. Dowd discovered evidence that Rose had placed
bets with other bookies, including several with ties to organized crime. Dowd
also discovered evidence of hundreds of mysterious financial transactions
between Rose and these bookies.

Perhaps most damning was the testimony of Rose himself, given during two days
of deposition in February 1989. He admitted gambling on college and pro
basketball and NFL games, and described a system where he would have runners
place the bets for him, to protect his privacy. He denied knowing many of the
key figures, but was confronted by evidence that he had called them, left
tickets for them, or written checks to them. When asked to explain the checks
made out to cash or to fictitious payees that were cashed or deposited by
bookies, he had a variety of explanations -- failed real estate deals,
sponsorship of card shows -- none of which would plausibly have required such
clandestine methods intended to circumvent banking rules.

In addition to the documented flow of money, Rose was confronted with
evidence that he gave memorabilia or other valuable items to bookies. The bat he
used to break Ty Cobb's record, one of his World Series ring, the Hickok Belt he
won in 1975, and several of his sports cars. Rose also co-signed large bank
loans and promissory notes for bookies.

An FBI expert on gambling studied the evidence and concluded that when viewed
as a whole, the activity was typical of serious gambling behavior. It showed
that was Rose was betting about $15,000 per day with bookies. When the losses
got so high that a bookie would stop taking his bets, Rose simply took his
business to another bookie.

2) So Rose acknowledged gambling?

Yes. He admitted to illegal betting on basketball and football games, as well
as legal betting at horse tracks and dog tracks. At the time,
deputy-commissioner Fay Vincent argued that this by itself was grounds for
permanent banishment under Major league rules.

3) What about betting on baseball?

Rose adamantly denies this. But the pattern of gambling activity did not stop
when the NBA season ended in June and suddenly restart with the NFL in
September. It continued through the summer, when the only thing to bet on was
baseball. Rose offered no explanation for this, except to suggest that the
runners must have been placing additional bets for themselves.

The gambling records provided by Janszen, Peters, and others indicate Rose
bet on baseball. His payments to bookies continued through the summer,
indicating he was paying off losses on baseball bets.

4) Did Rose bet on Reds games?

The evidence of his baseball betting includes evidence that he bet on Reds
games. The Dowd Report clearly states that there is no evidence that Rose ever bet on the
Reds to lose. Additionally, it appears that Rose bet on the Reds every night
that they played. During the time period that was documented, Dowd found only
one occasion where the Reds played but Rose chose not to place a wager on the
game.

In December 2002, Dowd told the New York Post that he had reliable evidence
that Rose bet against his team but didn't include it in his 225-page report
because of time constraints. He later backed off of those statements. "I
was never able to tie it down," Dowd said. "It was unreliable, and
that's why I didn't include it in the report. I probably shouldn't have said it.
I was not trying to start something here."

5) Why is betting for your team such a bad thing?

In a 1989 article, Gerald Posner offered this explanation:

"The possibility exists that decisions won't be made in the team's best
interests, but rather because of the money riding on the game. If a manager
bets on a game, he may bring a player off injured reserves sooner than he
should in order to win, or he may pitch a reliever without enough rest, not
caring that he won't be able to pitch for several extra days. If a betting
manager gets in large debt to bookies, he can clear his account by merely
revealing inside information about the team. The opportunity for corruption is
greatly increased. This is not to suggest that Rose compromised the Reds in
any way. The chance that such impropriety could result is the reason for such
a strict taboo on betting baseball."

6) Why is betting on baseball a bad thing? Guys who take drugs or
beat their wives don't get such harsh punishment. Lots of them are in the Hall
of Fame.

Gambling is the worst thing a ballplayer can do, because it undermines the
integrity of the game. Since the goals of the gambler are different than the
normal goals of a baseball team, fan's trust in the game is shaken.

The use of drugs or other offenses are sometimes punished by baseball. While
these may be crimes against society, they are not necessarily crimes against
baseball.

Consider a student who passes a final exam under the influence of illegal
drugs. The professor might be inclined to call the police, but there's no reason
why the student shouldn't get the grade he earned. Then consider another student
who cheats on the same exam. No crime has been committed, but as a student
that's the worst possible behavior, and deserves the harshest penalty.

7) Did Rose throw games?

There has been no evidence that Rose did anything to intentionally cause his
team to lose a game.

8) What about the gambling slips?

Janszen supplied three slips of paper that he claimed came from Rose. Rose
allegedly wrote down the games he had bet on, and would later use it to check
the results. They describe betting activity on four different days that includes
betting on baseball. An FBI-expert concluded that it contained his fingerprints,
and another FBI expert concluded that it was in his hand-writing.

9) Why was there no hearing?

After Rose was given a copy of the Dowd report, Commissioner Giamatti set a
hearing date for late May. Rose sought and received a temporary court order
preventing the Reds or Major League Baseball from taking any action against him,
while he pursued a permanent injunction preventing Giamatti from disciplining
him. Giamatti had sent a letter to the judge sentencing Peters, praising him for
being cooperative and truthful with the investigation of Rose. Rose's lawyers
argued that Giamatti had pre-judged him, and should be disqualified from ruling
on the matter.

After three months of legal battles, a federal court threw out Rose's suit. A
settlement was announced a few days later.

A brief chronology of the proceedings during 1990:

May 9: John Dowd presents his report to Giamatti
May 11: Giamatti delivers report to Rose and schedules a
hearing for June 26th
June 19: Rose sues to block the hearing Giamatti has scheduled
June 25: State judge enjoins MLB from taking any action in the
Rose matter for 14 days
July 3: MLB moves to transfer the lawsuit to federal court; parties
agree that MLB will do nothing to Rose until at least three
days after the ruling on where the case should be held.
July 31: Federal judge rules that the matter belongs in federal court;
sets 8/14 as the date for a hearing on Rose's request for
preliminary injunction.
Aug 17: Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirms ruling that the matter
belongs in federal court
Aug 18: Federal judge says he'll hold a hearing on 8/28
Aug 23: Rose signs agreement
Aug 24: Agreement announced

10) What did the agreement say?

Rose agreed to be placed on the list of people who were "permanently
ineligible". Like others on the list, he would be allowed to apply for
re-instatement after one year. Major League Baseball agreed that there would be
no ruling as to whether or not Rose bet on baseball.

The agreement also said that Rose acknowledged that Giamatti had treated him
fairly, that Giamatti had a factual basis for imposing the penalty, and that
Rose could not challenge the agreement in court or otherwise. The exact wording
of the two pertinent clauses are:

"Peter Edward Rose is hereby declared permanently ineligible in accordance
with Major League Rule 21 and placed on the Ineligible List."

"Rose will conclude these proceedings before the commissioner without a
hearing and the commissioner will not make any formal findings or
determinations on any matter including without limitation the allegation that
Peter Edward Rose bet on any major league baseball games.... Nothing in this
agreement shall be deemed either an admission or denial by Peter Edward Rose
of the allegation that he bet on any major league baseball
game"

11) Doesn't it seem contradictory to impose the maximum penalty
without a formal finding as to what happened?

Not necessarily. The central issue of the case remained unresolved. However,
baseball felt that there were grounds for a permanent suspension based on the
other misconduct.

12) Did Giamatti break the agreement?

At the press conference announcing the agreement, the Commissioner was asked
if he believed that Rose bet on baseball. Giamatti said that in the absence of a
hearing, and therefore in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, he had to
conclude that Rose did bet on baseball.

Giamatti was unable to clarify or expand on his comments, because he died of
a heart attack eight days later, without making any additional public comments.

Some people believe that Giamatti was just expressing his personal opinion.
Many believe that he should not have expressed any opinion, since the agreement
stated that there would be no ruling. A few people believe that Giamatti's
statement should invalidate the agreement.

In his 2002 book, Fay Vincent said that it had been made clear to Rose and
his advisers that Giamatti would make this response if asked whether he thought
Rose bet on baseball. Vincent says that Rose's profession of shock at the
statement was a calculated plan to elicit public support from the outset.

13) Was there a secret deal that Rose would be reinstated after one
year?

Rose denies it, and so does Fay Vincent, who was deputy-commissioner at the
time. Giamatti denied it at the press conference announcing the agreement.

14) What has Pete
Rose said?

At the press conference announcing the agreement, Rose did not say much,
other than to continue to assert that he did not bet on baseball. He would not
answer a question about why he would accept the permanent suspension if he had
not bet on baseball. His lawyer chimed in to say that Rose could apply for
readmission after one year and would do so. He added that what Rose _had_
admitted to would probably warrant a one year suspension anyway.

Rose was silent through most of 1989, saying that the time would come for him
to tell his side of the story. He published a book in 1990 ("Pete Rose: My
Story" with Roger Kahn) that was rambling, disjointed, and didn't address any of
the substantive issues raised by the Dowd report. His basic defense has been to
admit that he was a "horsesh*t picker of friends" and that they (primarily
Janszen) were placing the baseball bets for themselves. Rose alleges that
Janszen and Peters concocted their story as part of a plot to extort money from
Rose.

Rose explained that he accepted the agreement because he knew he was entitled
to some punishment, and that continuing to fight in court might taken longer
than a year. Under the agreement, he could apply for reinstatement in exactly
one year.

Rose has frequently said that he doesn't feel he was treated fairly by
Giamatti or Dowd, but vowed that he would eventually be vindicated. He has
continued to deny that he ever bet on baseball games. In a live interview before
Game 2 of the 1999 World Series, Rose repeated his denials.

Rose did not apply for reinstatement until the fall of 1997, nearly eight
years after he was first eligible to do so. Commissioner Bud Selig said that the
application would be considered at an appropriate time. While no formal hearing
has taken place, Selig has said publicly that he has seen nothing to convince
him to overturn the original agreement.

Although the rules prohibit him from participating in official events, Rose
was honored on the field before Game 2 of the 1999 World Series for his
selection as a member of the All Century Team. he was also honored on the field
during the 2002 World Series, in a ceremony celebrating baseball's greatest
moments. Many critics slammed the hypocrisy of allowing Rose to return for
a major sponsor (Master Card sponsored the Greatest Moments campaign) after
having denied the request of the Cincinnati Reds to let him participate in
closing ceremonies for Riverfront Stadium just a month earlier.

In early December of 2002, Rose acknowledged that he had met with
Commissioner Selig and his representatives in Milwaukee to discuss his application
for reinstatement. After days of intense media speculation, Rose released
a statement through his agent Warren Greene which said:

"I greatly appreciate the tremendous fan support and interest in my
quest for reinstatement back into major league baseball. I carry with each of
you the passion to enter a new phase of this long drama.

"Since I submitted my application for reinstatement back in 1997, I
have looked forward to the opportunity to once again become a part of this
great game. I can say today that we have been provided the forum to discuss
all of the issues with major league baseball. Please respect this delicate
process and permit those of us intimate with the details to continue our
efforts."

15) Why is Rose ineligible for induction into the baseball Hall of
Fame?

In 1990, the Hall of Fame added a clause to its eligibility rules stating
that players who were on Baseball's ineligible list could not be considered as
candidates. Critics argued that this action was taken to specifically keep Rose
out of the Hall of Fame. Supporters argue that this was just a clarification,
formally acknowledging what had been an unwritten rule since the Hall of Fame's
inception.

16) Do Rose's stats warrant his election to the Hall of
Fame?

Most people think so, while there is some dispute as to how great he was. The
majority view seems to be that he was a great player, but that he doesn't belong
among the upper echelon of hitters such as Ted Williams, Ty Cobb, and Willie
Mays. At one end of the spectrum are a small group of fans who argue that he is
the greatest hitter in baseball history. At the other end is a smaller group who
believes that he was overrated and that his records are due more to longevity
than skill.

17) What about complaints that Pete Rose hung on too long in pursuit
of the hit record?

By the early eighties, Rose's play had dropped below the levels that would
normally be required for a first baseman to stay in the starting lineup. He was
awful in his last year with the Phillies (1983), and continued with the Expos in
1984 primarily to pursue his 4000th hit.

While most other teams wouldn't have considered him productive enough to be
in the lineup, Rose returned to Cincinnati as a player-manager, where he could
(and did) write his own name in the lineup. Even after he broke Cobb's record,
he played another year before being forced to retire.

Most people acknowledge that Rose put himself in the Reds lineup at the
expense of other more qualified players. For example, it seemed to make sense to
play Nick Esasky at first base, and give the leftfield job to Eric Davis or Kal
Daniels. With Rose at first, Esasky was stuck in leftfield and Davis and Daniels
probably were kept in the minors too long.

Many would argue that this selfish behavior hurt the team, and that the Reds
might have finished better than second had he allowed younger players to get the
playing time he was giving himself. Others argue that Reds fans wanted Rose in
the lineup, and that the interest in his pursuit of the record justified his
playing ahead of better players.

18) What about what Bill James wrote about the case? He said that the
betting slips couldn't be authentic, and that the case was based on rumor,
hearsay, and gossip.

In his 1990 book, James assailed the Dowd report. One point of contention was
that one of the gambling slips showed three baseball games that did not take
place on the same day. James mistakenly assumed that these were all baseball
games. A check of the NBA schedules shows that some of the games (like
"Philly at Atl.") were pro basketball games. In summary, all of the baseball and basketball games
listed on the three betting slips (covering five separate days) were played as
described. James acknowledges that he only read the summary report and never
looked at any of the eight volumes of evidence.

In his 2002 book, "The New Bill James Historical Abstract," James
made reference to this FAQ and re-stated his view of the alleged "betting
slips" (see page 791 of the hard cover edition). The author of this FAQ had
some email exchanges with James and his research assistant while they were
preparing the book, and it was pointed out again that the slips contained a mix
of baseball and basketball games. James ignores that fact, and continues
to assert that "Philadelphia did not play at Atlanta on April 8th."
The Phillies and Braves did not play on that date, but the 76ers and Hawks sure
did.

James also overstates the importance of the testimony of Peters and Janszen,
claiming that there is no case without them. This is simply not true. While
their testimony is significant, it is not the only evidence that Rose bet on
baseball. And their testimony does not exist in a vacuum, it is corroborated and
supported by a wealth of other evidence.

Furthermore, James suggests that Peters and Janszen had a grudge against
Rose, and were hoping to reduce their own prison sentences. That's true, but by
testifying against Rose, both Janszen and Peters admitted to additional illegal
activity that they had not yet been charged with, opening themselves to
additional legal consequences. Furthermore, since Peters and Janszen
corroborated each other's testimony, they would have had to have been
cooperating in their conspiracy if they were both lying. Clearly, that is an
unlikely scenario, given the adversarial relationship between Janszen and
Peters. Janszen was an FBI-informant who participated in a sting against Peters
that sent him to federal prison.

Also, if we're going to question the credibility of Peters and Janszen
because they were charged with (and eventually convicted of) felonies, then
shouldn't we hold Rose to the same standard? Rose himself went to prison for
failing to report large amounts of income, and admitted to engaging in a lot of
other illegal activity.

James may be right when he argues that Baseball could not have proven this
case in a criminal court. However, that is a standard that Baseball was not
obligated to meet. A federal court specifically ruled that the commissioner had
the sole authority to rule on the case. As with any internal hearing, the rules
of evidence and the principles of due process would not necessarily apply. In
his 1998 book, "Legal Bases: Baseball and the Law", prominent law professor
Roger Abrams concludes that Baseball met the standard of proof and treated Rose
fairly.

19) Where can I find out more details about the case?

James Reston wrote a book called "Collision at Home Plate", chronicling the
lives of Rose and Giamatti as they came together. The book offers a good inside
view of the investigation. The book's illustrations include a picture of one of
the alleged betting slips.

Mike Sokolove, a former Cincinnati sports reporter, wrote a book called
"Hustle: The Myth, Life and Lies of Pete Rose". It is a critical examination of
Rose, and goes well beyond the Dowd report in investigating Rose's alleged links
with drug-dealers, organized crime figures, and various other lowlifes.

Roger Abrams, Dean of Rutgers Law School, examines the legal issues of the
case in a chapter of his book "Legal Bases: Baseball and the Law."

Fay Vincent, who was deputy Commissioner during the Rose investigation and
was directly involved in the case writes about his experiences in the 2002 book
"The Last Commissioner: A Baseball Valentine."

The Dowd Report itself has not been published, but was released to the media
during the Rose v Giamatti court battle. Many larger libraries have copies of
the report, although the seven volume appendix with transcripts and evidence is
more difficult to find. John Dowd gave permission for the report to be published
at the Baseball Archive website in 1999. It is available at (http://baseball1.com/bb-data/rose/dowd).
In 2000, Dowd published a PDF version of the report, along with the seven
volumes of exhibits at dowdreport.com.

Thanks to David Grabiner, Doug Pappas, David Marasco, Mike McCullough, James
Weisberg and David Nieporent for comments on the original draft or substantial
contributions. Thanks to Jesse Thorn, Gene Carney, Rob Neyer, Bob Sutton, Jon
Sutton, Taylor Hale, Vern Morrison and others whose comments have helped improve
subsequent versions of this document. Thanks to John Dowd and Reuven Katz for
responding to my inquiries about the case.

Copyright and disclaimers:

This document is Copyright 1999, Sean Lahman. The document may be copied and
distributed freely in unmodified form, provided that this notice remains intact.
It may not be sold or included in a collection which is sold without the
permission of the author.

The opinions in this document are those of the author, not necessarily those
of Pete Rose or Major League Baseball. Legal opinions included here should not
be considered legal advice.